> Do you mind if I ask...

I don't mind if you ask anything. Discussion and respectful dialogue is always a good idea.

> Do you mind if I ask if there are any cases that God has misled somebody?

Not that I know of. Do you know of any?

> How do you tell if God misled you or if it was something else that misled you, especially since I take it you receive your information from God or his followers?

God doesn't mislead people. God doesn't lie (1 Sam. 15.29; Titus 1.2). I can assume and trust that if it is God giving the message, it is reliable.

> How would you assess if God is misleading you on anything?

A being who lies is not God.

> Could God claim to not be misleading you but actually be doing so without your recognition of it?

No, because that's lying on top of a lie.

Just for the sake of argument, I’m not trying to offend: Do you mind if I ask if there are any cases that God has misled somebody? Does it mean that if a person is misled, then by definition it was not God that misled them? Why would that be the case? How do you tell if God misled you or if it was something else that misled you, especially since I take it you receive your information from God or his followers? How would you assess if God is misleading you on anything? Could God claim to not be misleading you but actually be doing so without your recognition of it?

> Aren’t there plenty of people that proceed with radical behaviors even if it’s not obvious if they’re receiving direction from God or from themselves?

Of course there are. There is never a shortage of self-deluded people, people seeking power and attention, and fakers—radicals who lie about their experience with God to get their way. There is nothing in the biblical writers, in contrast to the posers, to lead one to the conclusion that these biblical authors were seeking power, fame, or wealth. All things must be evaluated rationally and logically. Many times the biblical authors received scorn and persecution for their messages. We all know that the claim to a message from God doesn't make it so, nor does popular rejection of the message void its legitimacy. We have to evaluate such messages on criteria such as (1) do the prophecies come true? (2) is the messenger a godly person of truth and integrity? (3) does the message square with other messages from God (since God doesn't contradict Himself)?, etc.

> What about believers of different religions that engage in radical behaviors (I take it that you believe their Gods to not exist)?

Radical behaviors in and off themselves are no sign of a legitimate message from God. Sometimes people are just radicals, sometimes just rabble-rousers, troublemakers, and the products of poor teaching and misguided thinking.

I don’t quite understand. Aren’t there plenty of people that proceed with radical behaviors even if it’s not obvious if they’re receiving direction from God or from themselves? What about believers of different religions that engage in radical behaviors (I take it that you believe their Gods to not exist)? What about the radical behaviors of some nonbelievers?

If there were no Bible or other believers, the only way to come to know God would be if He revealed Himself to me. That's what we see with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. In those specific cases, God directly speaks to all three of them.

Since it's God's plan to be in relationship with His people, whom He created, He must reveal Himself. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they don't know. If His nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God must undertake as a primary object a program of self-revelation. It's the only way people can come to know Him.

Romans 1.20 mentions that part of God's attributes (which we can infer to be order, uniformity, purpose, function, cause and effect, the validity of sense perception, beauty, reason, personality, knowledge, the benefits of moral responsibility, will, and love) can be known through creation, Paul doesn't claim that such general revelation is sufficient to save anyone.

> How would you know that that isn’t just you talking to yourself if no one else knew God?

It must have been obvious to Noah, Abraham, and Moses that it was not their own thoughts, hallucinations, or talking to oneself, since they all proceeded with fairly radical behaviors. There must have been something different and real about God's self-revelation that they knew it was Him.

If there were no religious texts or religious practitioners in the world—essentially nothing to tell you about God—would you come to know God? Does God directly speak to you? How would you know that that isn’t just you talking to yourself if no one else knew God?